A Good Club for Growth Scorecard on the Flake Anti-Earmark Votes
All 19 of Rep. Jeff Flake’s 2006 anti-earmark amendments failed, and none got more than 92 votes. Congress banned earmarks in 2011 through party rules, then brought them back in 2021 for fiscal 2022. In the House they are now called Community Project Funding and in the Senate Congressionally Directed Spending, with member names attached, public disclosure and spending caps. As of November 2026, Citizens Against Government Waste counts about $23.7 billion in FY2026 earmarks. New FY2027 earmarks are waiting while the government runs on a stopgap that expires December 11, 2026.
The Club for Growth put out a scorecard in 2006 showing how House members voted on 19 anti-earmark amendments offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). Flake brought them to the floor between late May and late June 2006, during the House debate on the fiscal 2007 appropriations bills. The author of the original blog post preferred this scorecard to an earlier one from Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) because it counted only these earmark votes and nothing else.
Each amendment tried to strike a single earmark. CAGW later reported that if all of them had passed, they would have cut $35.3 million in projects. The 19 amounts listed below add up to about $34.8 million.
The 19 Votes
These are the House roll-call votes the Club for Growth scored, with the earmark each amendment targeted:
- House Vote 190: Dairy education in Iowa ($229,000)
- House Vote 191: Hydroponic tomato production in Ohio ($180,000)
- House Vote 192: National Grape and Wine Initiative ($100,000)
- House Vote 204: Virginia Science Museum ($250,000)
- House Vote 205: Juniata Locomotive Demonstration ($1,000,000)
- House Vote 277: Swimming pool in Banning, California ($500,000)
- House Vote 278: “Facilities” in Weirton, West Virginia ($100,000)
- House Vote 279: Multipurpose facility in Yucaipa, California ($500,000)
- House Vote 280: Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York ($250,000)
- House Vote 298: Mystic Aquarium in New London, Connecticut ($1,000,000)
- House Vote 299: The Jason Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia ($1,000,000)
- House Vote 302: Northwest Manufacturing Initiative ($2,500,000)
- House Vote 303: Lewis Center for Education Research ($4,000,000)
- House Vote 304: Leonard Wood Research Institute ($20,000,000)
- House Vote 334: Arthur Avenue Retail Market ($150,000)
- House Vote 335: Bronx Council for the Arts in the Bronx, New York ($300,000)
- House Vote 336: Johnstown Area Regional Industries ($800,000)
- House Vote 337: Fairmont State University ($900,000)
- House Vote 338: Tourism Development Association in Kentucky ($1,000,000)
The Leonard Wood Research Institute earmark accounted for more than half the money targeted. Every amendment failed.
How the Parties Scored
The original post cited a blog that put the Republican average at about five votes against earmarks out of 19. The Democratic average was 0.55 of a vote. The post’s author called the Republican number “marginal at best.” In the author’s view, amendments offered by a conservative Republican should have been easier for Republicans to support than cuts to other spending, such as energy company subsidies.
The same blog said 112 Republicans scored lower than the Democratic average. In practice that meant they voted against all 19 amendments. A later retrospective in The American Spectator put the number of Republicans who opposed every amendment at 111, almost half the conference.
The original post did some arithmetic on this. The House had about 230 Republicans at the time. If about 112 of them scored zero and the overall average was five, the other 118 or so must have averaged close to 10 votes each. The author read that as a deep split inside the Republican conference.
Democrats Who Beat the Republican Average
Eight Democrats scored above the Republican average of about five votes:
| Member | District | Votes against earmarks | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Melissa Bean | IL-8 | 19 of 19 | 100% |
| Jim Cooper | TN-5 | 19 of 19 | 100% |
| Jim Matheson | UT-2 | 14 of 19 | 74% |
| Harold Ford Jr. | TN-9 | 13 of 19 | 68% |
| Earl Blumenauer | OR-3 | 5 of 19 | 26% |
| Barney Frank | MA-4 | 5 of 19 | 26% |
| Gene Taylor | MS-4 | 5 of 19 | 26% |
| Tom Udall | NM-3 | 5 of 19 | 26% |
The original post said Blumenauer, Udall and Frank had come up in its earlier coverage. CAGW also named Bean a “Taxpayer Hero” for 2006, partly because she backed the Flake amendments.
All eight have since left the House. Ford left in January 2007 after running for the Senate. Bean and Taylor lost their seats in 2010, and Frank retired in 2013. Udall moved to the Senate in 2009. Matheson retired in 2015, Cooper in 2023 and Blumenauer in January 2025.
The original post continued at Freedom Democrats | Online community for pro-Freedom Democrats.
What Happened After 2006
The Flake votes were the start of a longer fight over earmarks. The House banned them in 2011, and they came back in 2021 under new names and new rules. Here is how that played out:
- 2007: a bigger scorecard. The Club for Growth’s 2007 RePORK Card scored 50 anti-earmark amendments. Sixteen members voted for all 50, and every one of them was a Republican. Flake supported all 50 and offered many of them. Cooper scored 98% and was the only Democrat above 20%.
- 2005 onward: outside campaigns. Groups and bloggers kept up the pressure. One was PorkBusters, launched in September 2005 by bloggers N.Z. Bear and Glenn Reynolds in response to Hurricane Katrina reconstruction spending. CAGW’s figures show earmarks peaked at $29 billion in fiscal 2006.
- 2011: the moratorium. House Republicans adopted an earmark ban when they took the majority, and the Senate followed. The Congressional Research Service notes that the ban came only from party rules and committee practice, not from a law.
- 2021: the return. On February 26, 2021, House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said the committee would take member requests for fiscal 2022. The House named them Community Project Funding and the Senate named them Congressionally Directed Spending.
How earmarks work as of November 2026
Earmarks today have guardrails the 2006 projects did not have. Members must request projects publicly, post them online and certify that they have no financial interest in them. Committees list each project in the bill report with the sponsor’s name. Under current House Republican rules, each member can request up to 15 projects, and House earmarks are capped at half of 1% of discretionary spending.
The money is still large. CAGW’s 2026 Congressional Pig Book counted 8,392 earmarks worth $23.7 billion in fiscal 2026. That was up 4.4% from fiscal 2024 and is the fourth-highest total since CAGW started tracking in 1991. CAGW compared against fiscal 2024 because Congress passed none of the 12 regular fiscal 2025 bills. Senators requested $13.57 billion in earmarks, compared with $8.65 billion from House members.
FY2027 is still open. The Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027 (Division A of P.L. 119-103) was signed September 2, 2026. It funds the government at FY2026 levels through December 11, 2026. Stopgap bills normally carry no new earmarks. That means FY2027 projects, such as the Community Project Funding in five USDA accounts in the House-passed Agriculture bill, only get money if Congress passes full-year bills or writes in an exception.
FAQ
What was the Club for Growth RePORK Card?
It was the Club for Growth’s tally of how House members voted on amendments to strike earmarks. The 2006 version covered Jeff Flake’s 19 amendments. The 2007 RePORK Card grew to 50 amendments, and 16 Republicans scored 100%.
Did any of Flake’s 2006 amendments pass?
No. None of the 19 amendments got more than 92 votes, so every earmark stayed in its bill. The Club for Growth said the value of the votes was the record they created on each member’s position.
Are earmarks still banned in Congress?
No. The ban ran from 2011 until 2021, when both chambers brought earmarks back for fiscal 2022. The House calls them Community Project Funding and the Senate calls them Congressionally Directed Spending. Both now require public disclosure and a sponsor’s name on each project.
How much does Congress spend on earmarks now?
CAGW counted about $23.7 billion across 8,392 earmarks in fiscal 2026. Supporters of earmarks point out that this is a small share of total federal spending. Under House rules, the House’s own earmarks are capped at half of 1% of discretionary spending.
What happens to earmarks during a stopgap or shutdown?
A continuing resolution usually extends the previous year’s funding levels without adding new earmarks. FY2027 earmarks therefore depend on Congress passing full-year bills. The current stopgap runs out December 11, 2026.
Where can you look up earmarks in your state?
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees post tables of requested and funded projects, and each member’s website lists the requests they made. Once agencies award the money, you can track the spending on USAspending.gov.
Sources
- Congress.gov: Appropriations Status Table, FY2027
- Congressional Research Service: Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2027 (Division A of P.L. 119-103)
- Congressional Research Service: Community Project Funding, House Rules and Committee Protocols (R46722)
- Citizens Against Government Waste: 2026 Congressional Pig Book
- Citizens Against Government Waste: Rep. Bean named Taxpayer Hero
- The American Spectator: 2006, When Jeff Flake Was Tea Party Before There Was a Tea Party
- Reason: Stick It in Your Earmark (2007 RePORK Card)
- Holland & Knight: Beyond the Midterms, Congress Faces Converging Year-End Deadlines
About this article
- Fact-checked before publication.
- Published · Updated
